[x264-devel] Re: x246 and the Cinema Industry.

[Alex Izvorski]

Hi James,

Two comments here... 

I have informally floated the idea of using AVC high profile for digital
cinema to various people and organizations (e.g. Kodak).  The response I
always get it basically "Yeah, JPEG2000 sucks but we're stuck with it".
AVC obviously has huge benefits, but I don't see how the industry
inertia on this can be changed... perhaps if (a) someone developed AVC
plugins (soft/hardware) for most common digital cinema systems out there
and (b) a studio (even a small one) adopted a non-JPEG2000 format
exclusively.  Possibly a big cinema chain might be a good sponsor for
this (AMC, are you listening?)  Of course the cinemas have already
invested a lot in JPEG2000 systems, so they may not be too interested in
switching.

As for actually doing the work to add more high profile stuff to x264...
there are no technical obstacles that I can see, it's pretty
straightforward but it is also a lot of work, and it probably won't
happen unless there is $$$$$ to pay for it.  A lot of x264 development
is driven by features that commercial users want and pay for.  The other
class of features that get done are those that are just so cool that
developers feel like doing them for free and/or for their own use.
Alas, 4:4:4 and 12-bit do not fall in that category, since very few
people have either compatible video sources or playback equipment or
even disk space.  Not to say they're not cool, but you can see how
people wouldn't develop it if they couldn't use it themselves. 

Good luck on finding a sponsor, let me know if you do ;)

Regards,
--Alex

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 13:45 +1000, James Gardiner wrote:
> Hi x264 team,
> 
> My name is James Gardiner and I work in the cinema industry here in
> Australia.  Specifically Digital Cinema.
> 
>  
> 
> Currently I see a big opportunity for the x264 team to make a big
> impact on the cinema industry. I am writing this letter to encourage
> you to move forward in the areas that will achieve this sooner rather
> then later.
> 
>  
> 
> Firstly let me mention DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative).  This is a
> recommendation on how to achieve a digital cinema standard for the
> cinema industry.  It was developed by big players in the “tradition”
> film industry, and in some ways is a little over engineered.
> 
>  
> 
> I would simply like to address current image standards like that of
> H.264 and its roll in this area.
> 
>  
> 
> DCI recommends JPEG2000 compression.  An i-frame based JPEG2000 stream
> utilizing XYZ colour space.  Sounds great and will obviously achieve
> very good image quality.  But also very expensive to do and implement.
> 
>  
> 
> The major distribution companies have settled on this as a standard as
> you would expect, however, a gaping hole exists in the market.
> 
>  
> 
> With the changing media industry, the business models on making films
> is evolving.  Art house or niche films are becoming more popular.  The
> ability to distribute these films digitally has made these films far
> more viable.  I am extremely excited about this and how more content
> of this type is making it to the screen.  However..
> 
>  
> 
> The costs of following DCI recommendations can be a barrier to digital
> feature distribution.  This need not be the case in my opinion.
> 
>  
> 
> To make an example, the initial Digital features released before March
> 2007 where 80mbit MPEG2 1920x1080 24p.  As JPEG2000 hardware became
> available late 2006, this has driven the need to drop MPEG2 all
> together (For feature release).
> 
>  
> 
> And really I tend to agree with this as, MPEG2, as proven as it is,
> has a very limited colour depth. (Ie banding is especially annoying to
> me.)
> 
>  
> 
> Pushing the resolution issues aside, (2K, 4K, HD about 6% diff to 2K).
> 
>  
> 
> The adoption of the new H.264 Higher profile specifications could be a
> huge benefit to the cinema industry. Starting at 4:2:2 10bit or going
> to 4:4:4 12bit we then have an effective range of codec levels that
> can carry the required quality to the cinemas cost effectively.
> 
>  
> 
> This not only effects feature but also advertising practices.
> 
>  
> 
> I have been scanning the web for news on implementations of these
> features of H.264, however, none are currently available.  And as such
> proprietary version like Apple ProRes are popping up.  I thing it
> would be better for all if more open codecs are used for these type of
> implementations.  I would encourage the x246 team to look into these
> issues.
> 
>  
> 
> I describe this as an opportunity to the x264 team as, this technology
> could have a major effect on the future of cinemas and the world we
> know.  It is a rare opportunity to be able to participate in such
> world altering developments.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks you for reading,
> 
> James Gardiner
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 
This is the x264-devel mailing-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://developers.videolan.org/lists.html